Comment 52366

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted November 29, 2010 at 17:41:48

Are these reductions based on accidents per pedestrian? Accidents per car? Or simply a gross reduction? Could they be due to a reduction of pedestrian numbers on the whole because people avoid walking along and across fast one way streets? The rest of that article is basically advocating for maximizing traffic flow rates.

Randal O'Toole according to Wikipedia:

In the 1990s, O'Toole emerged as an outspoken critic of New Urbanist design and smart growth strategies.[4] O'Toole contends that these development strategies—in which regulatory measures and tax incentives are employed to encourage denser development, more efficient land use, and greater use of public transportation—ignore the desires and preferences of most housing consumers and ultimately waste public funds. His 1996 book The Vanishing Automobile and Other Urban Myths was written as a detailed critique of these styles of planning. He continues to advocate for free market solutions to urban planning and design in his writing and teaching, and is a staunch defender of urban sprawl [5][6] [7][8]. He has campaigned against smart growth policies and light rail systems in several U.S. states as well as in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and Ottawa, Ontario.[9][10]. Since 1995, he has been associated with the Cato Institute as an adjunct scholar and frequent anti-light rail campaigner.

Critics of O'Toole have noted his selective use of information, undocumented statistics, and unverifiable sources of information in order to support his claims against rail transit.[11][12] O'Toole has been criticized for declaring that roadways pay for themselves and are the best use of public funds, even though highways are some of the most expensive public works projects.[13]

Comment edited by seancb on 2010-11-29 16:43:06

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds